Local PD officer making a felon out of my friend

[Brad Johnson]

Our local PD is replacing their aging Sig .40's and the officers have the option of buying their duty guns for a song. One of my co-workers bought one of these Sigs from a friend that is a patrol officer. The gun is in great shape and the price was right. The problem comes in with the mags. The officer, being well-meaning, included two mags with the gun. Unfortunately he didn't pay very close attention to the side of the mags where it reads "For Law Enforcement or Military Use Only".

Needless to say I sent my buddy back to his cop friend to return the mags. Nothing like have a COP turn you into a felon!

Brad

 

[bigsapper]

Have him ask his friend to "hold" them 'till September.

 

[Wildalaska]

The Cop is the more culpable felon, he sold em..

WildmuchadoaboutnothingAlaska

 

[Ala Dan]

I agree, as "vicarious liability" makes its presence
known here!

As the officer did know or should have known*
that these magazines were for LE/GOV'T use only. IMHO,
he is more guilty than you're friend.

*FootNote: or had the right to know

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[one45auto]

I wouldn't have worried about the magazines, and for several reasons:

1) The officer sold them himself. Fellow members of the LE community would be hard pressed to justify an arrest considering that one of their own sold the darned things.

2) They might have been manufactured before the capacity limitation went into effect. (Okay, slim chance but worth trying.)

3) Who the heck is ever going to stop him and ask, "Can I see your magazines, sir?" So long as he's not using it as a CCW piece he shouldn't have to worry.

 

[azrael]

I wouldnt have returned them...Cops dont care about mags...they care about the guns that they are in...

If he was worried I would have told him to put them into a drawer and forget about them until Sept..

Or a dremel tool is AWAYS an option

EvadiwasonceamachinistB.

 

[Ankeny]

I would have returned them. The individual cop probably didn't own the mags. In all probability they were purchased on department letterhead and legally belonged to the agency. If some BATF guy wanted to be a total jerk, they would nail both of the offenders.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The blame goes both ways. The LEO should never have sold an LEO only mag to a non-LEO and the non-LEO should have not taken possession of the mags. Both parties should have been more careful and fully inpected the gun and mags.

As possession could result in being prosecuted for a felony, taking a dremel to remove the label stating LEO only might also be a felony and if not, it would be an obstruction of the investigation.

 

[azrael]

Double Naught,
yea taking a Dremel to the mag. is MAYBE not the smartest thing to do...however I would not worry about it much to begin with...Granted you are running the risk of getting caught...but I think that the chances of that are slim and none...To me this is one of those "much todo about nothing" problems that pop up from time to time...

Guy took them back..Good for him..Me? I probably would not have...Am I saying that I would have taken a dremel to them? No I am not...however I still say that the "felony possesion of high caps" is a NOTHING issue...

BTW...If you are checked by a BATFE agent then you prolly are screwed...if by a local cop? then you as a rule wont have a problem...They have better things to do..

My .02 peso's

 

[Dienekes]

Big deal. One more piece of evidence that we are being gelded one cut at a time.

42M snuffed since Roe vs. Wade, and we are supposed to get concerned over a "standard capacity" magazine?

 

[El Tejon]

00, the blame goes to whom the USA sez it does.

 

[Calhoun]

What does Roe v. Wade have to do with handguns? Me, I would have kept the mags and not worried about it. I think that EVERYONE has better things to do than worry about this.

Calhoun

 

[Edward429451]

You answered your own question calhoun. Roe v Wade is relevant in that everyone has better things to worry about than this magazine issue.

 

[Dienekes]

Calhoun: Roe v. Wade is essentially the same as the Dred Scott decision--a Supreme Court decision so far divorced from the realities and reflecting a degree of judicial arrogance that it has become a fault line. It took the civil war to render the Dred Scott decision moot, and Roe v. Wade is not built on anything stronger than judicial whim either.

So--we have no difficulty in challenging a considerable body of natural law on the one hand while worrying about how many numbers of rounds a particular magazine holds, and bringing the full weight of the state to bear on both matters. I guess if we distract ourselves enough we can avoid wrestling with the contradictions. Our self-appointed manipulators are counting on it, anyway.

So far we have shown a remarkable willingness to go with the flow. Sort of makes you wonder if there are any indignities to which we will not submit in the end. Schumer/Brady/Clinton/Kerry et al may be loathsome, but they do show a remarkable awareness of human nature and what is achievable over the long term.

Enjoy your guns, computers, and freedom of speech while you still have them.

 

[liljohn]

Chances are there is no law on the books regarding the use of these magazines. If they are not individually serial numbered, there is no way to know when they were manufactured, unless the manufacturer has documentation specifying when they started stamping that statement on them.

I'd keep them. In time, it won't matter.

Should people return U.S. Govt-marked Enfields? Technically, Britian was supposed to return them after the war and never did. They are still the property of the US govt. but nobody cares now.

 

[Tamara]

Chances are there is no law on the books regarding the use of these magazines.

It has been a federal felony to do so since 9/94. (See: AWB)

Chances are there is no law on the books regarding the use of these magazines. If they are not individually serial numbered, there is no way to know when they were manufactured, unless the manufacturer has documentation specifying when they started stamping that statement on them.

They were manufactured post-9/94, as indicated by the "For LE/Military Use Only" markings.

 

[George S.]

If the LEO's bought their duty weapon and mags from the same supplier, there's always a chance that the LEO did not simply think of the federal law at the time he sold the pistol. If you think about all the laws and ordinances that they have to be aware of, it's probably not too suprising that this guy missed thinking about this one. Sometimes, when I see mone about to handed over to me for the sale of one of my guns, I start thinking about what I 'm going to buy next

Hopefuly it was an honest mistake on the part of the LEO and you were certainly right in telling your friend to return the mags to the LEO or his PD for either destruction or sale to other PD's that still use SIG's.

 

[sturmruger]

I am sure the cop can hold the mags for your buddy until Sept 14th then he can legally own the mags.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Hopefuly it was an honest mistake on the part of the LEO

Thankfully, it was. The officer thought he was doing my friend a favor by throwing in a couple of mags. He hadn't the foggiest clue about the severity of the infraction. Unfortunately it appears the only mags they have are the LE/Military Only mags. A local shop that does a lot of business with the PD was nice enough to sell him a couple of standard mags at cost.

Brad

 

[TCD]

sounds like everything worked out pretty good in the end